Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 20:17:15 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
99 ERC SES 04 R: Fostering Critical Thinking, Argumentation, and Problem Solving in School Education
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** Developing Students’ Systematic Problem-Solving and Decision-Making Skills Through the GRASPS Framework in Mathematics and Physics Education NIS PHMD Shymkent Abay, Kazakhstan Presenting Author:This paper examines the pedagogical potential of the GRASPS framework for developing students’ systematic problem-solving and conscious decision-making skills in mathematics and physics education. In contemporary European and international educational contexts, increasing attention is paid to competence-based learning, where students are expected not only to master subject-specific knowledge but also to demonstrate higher-order skills such as reasoning, strategic thinking, and informed decision-making. Mathematics and physics play a central role in this agenda, as both subjects require structured thinking, modelling, and evidence-based conclusions. The study is guided by the following research question: The theoretical framework integrates three complementary perspectives. First, the GRASPS framework (Goal, Role, Audience, Situation, Product/Performance, Standards), originating from the Understanding by Design (UbD) model, serves as a tool for designing authentic performance-based tasks. GRASPS tasks require students to operate within meaningful contexts, clarify goals, consider constraints, and evaluate outcomes against explicit criteria. This structure supports the development of systematic approaches to problem-solving rather than reliance on routine procedures. Second, the study is informed by constructivist learning theory, which emphasises active knowledge construction through engagement with complex, context-rich tasks and collaborative learning environments. Third, metacognitive theory provides a lens for analysing how students reflect on their own thinking, strategy selection, and decision-making during problem-solving activities. The research is conducted in secondary school mathematics and physics classrooms and adopts a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design. GRASPS-based tasks are embedded into selected curriculum units in both subjects, focusing on problem situations that require analysis, modelling, justification of assumptions, and evaluation of results. Data collection includes classroom observations, analysis of students’ written work and products, student reflective questionnaires, and teacher reflective notes. These data sources allow for a detailed examination of changes in students’ problem-solving strategies, the coherence of their reasoning, and the extent to which they make conscious and justified decisions when approaching complex tasks. Particular attention is paid to how students structure their solutions, articulate reasoning, and apply standards or criteria when evaluating their own work. Rather than focusing solely on correct answers, the study analyses the quality of students’ thinking processes, including planning, monitoring, and reflection. This approach aligns with international research trends that emphasise learning processes and competencies over purely summative outcomes. The European and international dimension of the study is reflected in its alignment with key policy and research priorities, including the development of 21st-century skills, scientific literacy, and competency-based assessment frameworks promoted across European education systems. The GRASPS framework is internationally recognised and adaptable to diverse curricular contexts, making the findings transferable beyond the local setting. Moreover, by applying a common pedagogical framework across mathematics and physics, the study contributes to interdisciplinary approaches in STEM education, which are increasingly encouraged in European educational reforms. The findings are expected to demonstrate that GRASPS-based task design supports students in adopting more systematic and reflective approaches to problem-solving and enhances their ability to make conscious, well-reasoned decisions. The study contributes to educational research by providing empirical insights into the use of performance-based frameworks in mathematics and physics education. For practitioners, it offers concrete examples of task design that can be adapted across subjects and contexts. For the wider research community, the paper highlights the value of structured, authentic learning tasks in fostering competencies that are central to contemporary European and international education agendas. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study adopts a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods research design to explore how the GRASPS framework influences students’ systematic problem-solving and conscious decision-making skills in mathematics and physics education. This approach is selected to capture not only observable learning outcomes but also the underlying cognitive and metacognitive processes that emerge during students’ engagement with GRASPS-based tasks. The research is conducted in secondary school mathematics and physics classrooms within a formal school setting. Purposeful sampling is used to select classes in which GRASPS tasks are systematically integrated into regular curriculum units. The intervention spans several instructional cycles, allowing students sufficient time to become familiar with the structure and expectations of GRASPS-based learning activities. Both subjects are included to examine how a common pedagogical framework supports problem-solving across disciplinary contexts. GRASPS-based performance tasks are designed in alignment with curriculum objectives in mathematics and physics. Each task clearly defines the Goal, Role, Audience, Situation, Product or Performance, and Standards, ensuring transparency of expectations and assessment criteria. Tasks are intentionally constructed to require students to analyse problem situations, select and justify strategies, apply disciplinary concepts, and evaluate their solutions against explicit standards. This design enables the investigation of systematic problem-solving processes rather than routine procedural performance.Multiple data collection instruments are employed to ensure methodological triangulation. Classroom observations are conducted using a structured observation protocol focusing on students’ engagement, collaboration, strategy selection, and decision-making processes during GRASPS-based tasks. Students’ written work and final products are collected and analysed to examine the coherence of reasoning, use of representations, and application of explicit assessment criteria. In addition, reflective student questionnaires are administered to capture learners’ perceptions of their problem-solving strategies, metacognitive awareness, and decision-making processes. Teacher reflective notes are maintained throughout the intervention to document instructional decisions, observed challenges, and emerging patterns. Data analysis follows a qualitative content analysis approach. Observation notes, student artefacts, and reflective responses are coded using a framework informed by problem-solving and metacognitive theory, including indicators such as planning, monitoring, justification, and evaluation. Descriptive quantitative elements, such as the frequency of identified strategies or reflective indicators, are used to support qualitative interpretations rather than for statistical generalisation. Ethical considerations are addressed in accordance with institutional and international research standards. Participation is voluntary, informed consent is obtained, and anonymity and confidentiality are ensured in all stages of the study. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study is expected to show that the systematic use of the GRASPS framework in mathematics and physics education enhances students’ problem-solving processes and conscious decision-making. Rather than relying on routine procedures or memorised algorithms, students are anticipated to adopt structured approaches involving careful analysis, strategic planning, and explicit justification of their solutions. These outcomes highlight the influence of task design on the quality of students’ thinking. A key expected outcome is an improvement in students’ ability to articulate reasoning and make informed decisions when selecting problem-solving strategies. By providing clearly defined Goals, Roles, Audiences, Situations, Products, and Standards, GRASPS-based tasks encourage reflection on both process and product. This transparency supports metacognitive awareness, enabling learners to monitor progress, evaluate alternatives, and revise solutions based on explicit criteria. The findings are also expected to reveal differences in students’ approaches across mathematics and physics contexts. Although content and representations vary, the shared GRASPS structure is anticipated to provide a common cognitive scaffold, facilitating the transfer of problem-solving strategies between subjects. This suggests that GRASPS can serve as an effective interdisciplinary framework in STEM education, promoting coherence and consistency in learning.At the instructional level, GRASPS-based task design is expected to help teachers align learning objectives, assessment criteria, and classroom activities. This alignment may lead to more meaningful assessments that prioritise reasoning, justification, and decision-making over mere reproduction of correct answers. From a broader perspective, the results are expected to contribute to European and international discussions on competency-based education and performance-based assessment. Overall, the study aims to provide evidence that the GRASPS framework is a valuable pedagogical tool for fostering higher-order thinking in mathematics and physics. The conclusions offer insights for research and practice, demonstrating how structured, authentic tasks can support students’ systematic reasoning and conscious decision-making in line with contemporary international educational priorities. References Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Grant, S., & Thornton, H. (2007). Authentic tasks and the GRASPS framework: Enhancing student engagement. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(4), 377–390. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. Hattie, J., & Yates, G. (2014). Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn. London: Routledge. OECD. (2018). The Future of Education and Skills 2030: OECD Learning Compass 2030. Paris: OECD Publishing. European Commission. (2019). Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union. Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 317–334). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. Bruner, J. S. (1961). The Act of Discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2014). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do. Paris: OECD Publishing. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Dissent at School. Functionality of Oral Argumentation in Primary School Lessons Universität Kassel, Germany Presenting Author:This doctoral project examines how subject-specific knowledge in primary school classrooms becomes a point of reference for epistemic problematisation. The focus is on the dynamics of stabilisation and destabilisation of knowledge in the conduct of lessons. Empirically, it focuses on practices that challenge subject-specific knowledge and make it the topic of verbal, oral articulation of dissent. As the communicative practice designed to deal with conflicting claims, oral argumentation plays a special role in this context (cf. Deppermann 2018). As such it is also a crucial communicative skill for participating actively in a democracy. School knowledge obeys its own rules. This distinguishes it significantly from knowledge framed within a scientific context. The latter's (temporary) openness to results is generally completely absent in the former. Although there are subject-specific differences, knowledge in school is either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. It is already known. Discursive interaction patterns in the classroom, however, are considered pedagogically opportune (cf. Alexander 2018), as they are believed to have beneficial effects on the quality of subject-specific learning processes (cf. Clarke 2015). Nevertheless teaching proves to be resistant to forms of interaction that would offer more scope for communicative practices of articulating dissent (cf. Ford/Forman 2015). The IRE pattern (cf. Mehan 1979) in classroom interaction, on the other hand, proves to be functionally persistent. Among other things, it solves the problem of unambiguous knowledge preparation in the medium of oral communication. Furthermore, the written recording of knowledge, i.e. its transition from fleeting oral communication to materially solidified written form, represents a decisive step towards unambiguity (Proske 2013; Röhl 2015). This process of unambiguous knowledge production is usually described primarily as a linear event: In this approach, knowledge is first imparted through planned didactic narrowing, then through known information questions, then recorded in writing and finally tested. The PhD project builds on this work, but attempts to place this process more firmly in an empirical perspective as a dynamic event that does not follow a single direction. For empirical purposes, particular attention must be paid to situational opportunities in the classroom in which well-established procedures of epistemic disambiguation practices stumble, falter, and have to be followed up. Against this background, how do subject-related negotiations take place and what problems do they solve in the classroom? How and where does scope open up for practices of knowledge-related articulation of dissent? Where does the factuality of school education oscillate? How is this processed by participants in different situations? What is at stake for classroom teaching when subject-related dissent is articulated? And what can be gained from addressing it in the classroom? Such studies are particularly missing for primary school teaching in whole class settings. The majority of studies examine communicative argumentation practices in non-classroom contexts (cf. Morek et al. 2017), in small school groups (cf. Kreuz 2025) or in secondary schools (cf. Heller 2025). Heuristically, a praxeological understanding of classroom interaction is used, which takes into account not only human but also non-human actors (cf. Breidenstein 2021; Schatzki 1993). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The doctoral project follows an ethnographic research strategy (Breidenstein et al. 2020). Field trips lasting several weeks were conducted at two German primary schools and one independent democratic school between early 2025 and early 2026. I primarily observed lessons in two third-year classes. The sampling was based on the linguistic and social composition of the student cohort. One primary school is located in a heavily urbanised neighbourhood with a high proportion of immigrants, while the other is located in a socio-economically strong suburb of a large city. The first primary school teaches many children with special educational needs and children with L1 other than German – the second school does not. The sampling decision was based on the desire to create a contrast between the attributed educational language skills of the pupils. In line with a theoretical sampling strategy, I then included a free democratic school. This allows for a contrast between interaction patterns and references to school knowledge, which in some cases differ greatly from those in public schools. Further selective field phases will follow as needed.I put a focus on L1 German lessons, but participated in all types of classes. In addition to compiling extensive ethnographic protocols, I videotaped lessons. Audiographic and selective videographic access to situations in the field makes it possible to take a more detailed analytical look at fleeting verbal interactions. Two third-grade classes from the two state primary schools in the sample participated in L1 German lessons conducted by their respective class teachers, which focused on oral argumentation. The participation rate in the lessons was high, with around 20 pupils (out of 26 per class), which ensured that the interaction in the videotaped lessons was as natural as possible. Ten GoPros on tripods were used at the pupils' tables to capture the pupils' interaction in the group work phases from two angles each. During the plenary phase, two cameras were used to film from different angles. The cameras were used repeatedly in advance during the field phases, which lasted several weeks, to allow the pupils to become accustomed to the camera situation. The subsequent functional analysis of the material is based on iterative combinations of sequence analysis methods and coding methods borrowed from GTM (cf. Corbin/Strauss 2015). The evaluation of the audio and video material is based on ethnomethodological conversation analysis (cf. Bergmann 1981) and incorporates multimodal aspects of interaction (cf. Mondada 2007). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings It is evident that argumentation as a subject-specific practice in primary school L1 German lessons is in crisis - even though it is part of the curriculum. This applies not only to communicative practices of argumentation, but also to exclusively oral teaching communication in general. In contrast to writing practices, they need to be explicitly designated as a subject of L1 German lessons in the course of classroom interaction. At the same time, the classes studied show that the lessons devoted to oral argumentation can be integrated into the interaction order more smoothly than expected. As a didactic learning object that has been incorporated into lesson planning, dissent practices appear to pose little or no risk to classroom interaction. Everyday objects in classrooms prove to be resistant actors around which subject-specific content can be intensively negotiated – for example, seat cushions in a mathematics lesson dealing with geometric solids. As such, they can become motors of intensive subject-specific debate. The likelihood of such opportunities being used as spaces for dissent practices is related to the timing of the lesson. Lessons that are under time pressure seem to reduce the likelihood of interactive subject-related dissent practices. Subject-related dissent practices can be taken up situationally as provocations of the social order in the classroom on the part of pupils. In such cases, they are interpreted by teachers as something to which they respond with disciplinary measures rather than subject-related elaboration. The educational language skills attributed to the pupils show no strong observable correlation with the extent to which pupils engage in the linguistic articulation of dissent. Numerous multimodal communicative resources are used, especially by those pupils who still have a limited German vocabulary, thus ensuring discursive participation. References Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial,. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561–598. Bergmann, J. (1981). Ethnomethodologische Konversationsanalyse. In H. Steger & P. Schröder (Hrsg.), Dialogforschung: Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (S. 9–52). Schwann. Breidenstein, G. (2021). Interferierende Praktiken. Zum heuristischen Potenzial praxeologischer Unterrichtsforschung. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 24, 933-953 Breidenstein, G., Hirschauer, S., Kalthoff, H., & Nieswand, B. (2020). Ethnografie. Die Praxis der Feldforschung (3. Aufl.). UVK. Clarke, S. N. (2015). The Right to Speak. In C. Asterhan, L. Resnick, & S. Clarke (Hrsg.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue. American Educational Research Association. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (4. Aufl.). SAGE. Deppermann, A. (2018). Wissen im Gespräch. In K. Birkner & N. Janich (Hrsg.), Handbuch Text und Gespräch (S. 104–142). De Gruyter. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2015). Uncertainty and Scientific Progress in Classroom Discourse. In C. Asterhan, L. Resnick, & S. Clarke (Hrsg.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue (S. 143–156). American Educational Research Association. Heller, V. (2025). Förderung von Diskurskompetenz in Unterrichtsgesprächen. Was macht interaktive Kontexte zu Erwerbskontexten? In N. Proske, T. Weber, M. Dannerer, & A. Deppermann (Hrsg.), Gesprochenes Deutsch: Struktur, Variation, Interaktion (S. 425–452). De Gruyter. Kreuz, J. (2025). Kinder argumentieren—Zum ko-konstruierten Begründen in Kleingruppendiskussionen. In H. de Boer & D. Merklinger (Hrsg.), Dialog als interaktive Praxis. Grundschüler*innen im kollektiven Fachgespräch (S. 253–270). Springer VS. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons. Social Organization in the Classroom. Harvard University Press. Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible nextspeakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225. Morek, M., Heller, V., & Quasthoff, U. (2017). Erklären und Argumentieren. Modellierungen und empirische Befunde zu Strukturen und Varianzen. In I. Meißner & E. L. Wyss (Hrsg.), Begründen—Erklären—Argumentieren. Konzepte und Modellierungen in der Angewandten Linguistik (S. 11–46). Stauffenburg Verlag. Proske, M. (2013). Die Ordnung des Unterrichts. Oder: Zum Nutzen einer kommunikationstheoretischen Beschreibung von Unterricht für die Allgemeine Didaktik. In Jahrbuch für Allgemeine Didaktik 2013 (S. 147–160). Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Röhl, T. (2015). Transsituating Education. Educational Artefacts in the Classroom and Beyond. In S. Bollig, M.-S. Honig, S. Neumann, & C. Seele (Hrsg.), MultiPluriTrans in Educational Ethnography. Approaching the Multimodality, Plurality and Translocality of Educational Realities (S. 121–140). transcript Verlag. Schatzki, T. R. (1993). Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge University Press. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Measuring the Development of Critical Thinking Skills in Preschool Children: A Systematic Literature Review University of Bucharest, Doctoral School of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Romania Presenting Author:Assessment, evaluation, testing and measurement are fundamental within educational process. The ways in which these tools are set up vary from one educational system to another. However, they share the same important functions: diagnostic, formative, informative, motivational, regulatory, summative and predictive. In Romania, the end of one educational cycle is marked by a national evaluation or exam. Individual decisions are made based on the results obtained. Educational policies emerge from analyzing the level of the results. But what did we actually measure? Did we evaluate according to objectives that was followed through the years? Are those objectives aligned to educational goals and the broad purposes of education? The education law in Romania presents goals and structures oriented toward twenty first century skills. These skills include critical and creative thinking and national and universal values. According to Delphi Project, Critical thinking contains six main cognitive actions: analysis, evaluation, inference, interpretation, explanation and self-regulation. Some of them appear early in life and need refinement, other develop with age and also need training. From the first years of kindergarten to the last years of high school, measurement of critical thinking is essential. Knowing the level of critical thinking skills is necessary in order to develop it. Thus, critical thinking skills should be evaluate throughout the years. This topic is relevant in today`s world, a world marked by fast changes and novelty. The ability to understand, position accordingly and embrace good change is imbedded in critical thinking and, therefore it is to be admired. Since critical thinking is one of the goals of the entire educational system, it`s importances cannot be overlooked. Studying critical thinking in order to develop intentionally and methodically these skills is needed. Measuring critical thinking skills is necessary and instruments need to be further developed. Instrument of measuring critical thinking skills in Romania have been adapted from international ones. Existing tools measure critical thinking for ages eighteen years and over. The purpose of this research is to create an instrument for measuring critical thinking skills in preschool children in Romania. In order to create a valid and reliable tool, and based on the Delphi Project findings, the following research question is formulated:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The method used to reach the goal of the study is systematic literature review. This method provides aggregated data that allows reducing research gaps and empower informed decision-making in critical thinking evaluation and development for preschool children. Data bases on Enfromation platform with research journals are selected on clear inclusion and exclusion criterions. Boolean search is used for this systematic literature review. The key words proposed for search are: (critical thinking OR cognitive abilities OR thinking OR cognitive development OR thinking skills) AND analysis AND evaluation AND inference AND interpretation AND explanation AND self-regulation AND (preschoolers OR preschool children OR kindergarten kids) AND 3-4 years AND 4-5 years AND 5-6 years AND (testing OR measuring OR evaluating OR assessing). The next step is represented by screening of the studies: duplicate elimination, title and abstract analysis and full text evaluation. For clarity and quality of the research, the PRISMA guidelines will be followed during the systematic literature review process. After results synthesis and report writing, a measurement instrument based on the systematic literature review findings will be carried out. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Expected results for this study include identification of the core critical thinking abilities specific to preschool years. Four out of the six critical thinking skills named in Delphy Report are expected to be met at this age: analysis, evaluation, interpretation, explanation. Some of the studies suggest that, the other two skills (inference and self-regulation) are specific for children 9 years and above. However, identification of preliminary mental activities for this two skills and others, specific to preschool children ages, is necessary for a clear description of critical thinking skills of preschool children. Based on these findings, a critical thinking test for preschool children in Romania will be formulated and results will be presented. A short description of classic or unique ways in which critical thinking skills are met in children aged between 3 and 6 years will be written. References Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education, 181-193. Bloom, B. S. Engelhart, M. D. Furst, E. J. Hill, W. H. și Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay, 483-498. Burieva, K. E. (2025). Fostering critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity in education: global experiences and local implications. American Journal of Innovation in Science Research and Development, 2(2), 33-37. Dewey, J. (2022). How we think. DigiCat. Dilek, Ö. A. (2025). The problem of developing critical thinking skills in preschoolers. Вестник НАН РК, 413(1), 284-296. Enciso, O. L. U. Enciso, D. S. U. și Daza, M. D. P. V. (2017). Critical thinking and its importance in education: Some reflections. Rastros Rostros, 19(34), 78-88. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational researcher, 18(3), 4-10. Ernst, J. Monroe, M. (2004). The effects of environment‐based education on students' critical thinking skills and disposition toward critical thinking. Environmental Education Research, 10(4), 507-522. Facione, P. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (The Delphi Report). León, J. M. (2015). A baseline study of strategies to promote critical thinking in the preschool classroom. GIST–Education and Learning Research Journal, (10), 113-127. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press. O'Reilly, C. Devitt, A. și Hayes, N. (2022). Critical thinking in the preschool classroom-A systematic literature review. Thinking skills and creativity, 46, 101-110. Paul, R., și Elder, L. (1992). Critical thinking: What, why, and how. New directions for community colleges, 77(2), 3-24. Pellegrino, J. W. Bransford, J. D. și Donovan, M. S. (Eds). (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. National Academies Press. Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A General Theory for the Development of Creative Productivity Through the Pursuit of Ideal Acts of Learning. Gifted child quarterly, 36(4), 170-182. Scheffler, I. (1973). Reason and Teaching. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Siegel, H. (1980). Critical thinking as an educational ideal. The Educational Forum, 45(1), 7-23. Sternberg, R. J. și Halpern, D. F. (Eds.). (2020). Critical thinking in psychology. Cambridge University Press. Walsh, D., & Paul, R. W. (1986). The Goal of Critical Thinking: from Educational Ideal to Educational Reality. American Federation of Teachers. Weinstein, M. (1991). Critical thinking and education for democracy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 23(2), 9-29. 99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper Teachers’ Conceptions and Challenges in Teaching and Assessing Critical Thinking Across Italian Schooling Levels University College Dublin, Ireland Presenting Author:Critical thinking (CT) draws from foundational theories like Socrates' elenchus method of inquiry through dialogue (Oyler & Romanelli, 2014), Dewey's reflective thinking as deliberate evidence-based inquiry (Dewey, 1910), and the triadic model by Perkins (1993) emphasizing inclinations, sensitivities, and abilities. These frameworks highlight CT as encompassing not just cognitive skills (e.g., analysis, evaluation per Facione, 1990) but also dispositions like open-mindedness and contextual sensitivities (Ennis, 1996; Siegel, 1988). Despite this strong normative emphasis, empirical research continues to highlight a persistent gap between policy aspirations and teachers’ everyday classroom practices (OECD, 2019a; Biesta, 2010). This gap appears particularly pronounced in relation to the teaching and assessment of CT, which remains uneven, fragmented, and weakly supported across school levels (Abrami et al., 2015). A growing body of research suggests that teachers face multiple challenges when attempting to operationalise CT in practice, including conceptual ambiguity regarding what CT entails (Li, 2023; Galindo-Domínguez et al., 2023), difficulties aligning CT with subject-specific curricula (Batdı, 2024), limited assessment tools (Abrami et al., 2015) and insufficient institutional or professional support (Stoll & Louis, 2007). The urgency of addressing these challenges has intensified with the rapid diffusion of digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) in educational contexts (Brazão & Tinoca, 2025). Automated tools increasingly shape how students access information, produce texts, and solve problems, raising concerns about the outsourcing of key cognitive processes such as evaluation, interpretation, and judgment (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019). In this context, teachers are required to navigate new pedagogical tensions between efficiency and depth, automation and autonomy, and support and dependence (Biesta, 2010). Understanding teachers’ perceptions of CT and the challenges they encounter is therefore essential for designing educational responses that remain meaningful in AI-rich learning environments. This project investigates the central challenges in teaching and assessing critical thinking school levels in Italy, focusing on teachers’ conceptions of CT and their perceived access to professional and community-based support (Shafer, 2025). Rather than examining CT implementation within a single institutional setting, the study adopts a system-level perspective, exploring how challenges and supports vary across pre-primary, primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education. The study employs a national survey design, targeting in-service teachers across all levels of schooling. Data are collected through an online questionnaire distributed nationally via professional networks, institutional channels, and social media dissemination (Galindo-Domínguez et al., 2023). An expected sample of approximately 300 teachers allows for cross-level and cross-context comparisons. The survey examines teachers’ definitions of CT, perceived pedagogical and assessment challenges, experiences of collegial and community support, and attitudes towards digital technologies and AI in relation to CT development. By providing quantitative evidence at scale, this study contributes to the still underdeveloped empirical literature on critical thinking implementation across educational levels (Granström et al., 2023). The findings aim to inform policy, teacher education, and school leadership by identifying structural and professional conditions necessary to support coherent and sustainable approaches to CT in contemporary education systems. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study is the second phase of a four-year project that included a curriculum analysis, a nationwide teacher survey, and in-depth interviews with 8 teachers from primary and lower secondary schools at a local lower secondary school in Italy. The interviewees represented a range of subject areas including languages, mathematics, literature, English, and student support. These teachers were recruited from those who had attended Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) workshops and/or experimented with the method in their classrooms. This second phase includes a cross-sectional national survey designed to investigate teachers’ conceptions of critical thinking and the challenges associated with its teaching and assessment across all levels of schooling (Nolan, 2024). The target population includes in-service teachers working in pre-primary, primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education, across a range of subject areas and institutional contexts. Data are collected through an online questionnaire designed to capture both conceptual and contextual dimensions of teachers’ engagement with CT (Connors & Piro, 2025). The survey is structured into thematic sections addressing: (1) professional background and school level; (2) teachers’ definitions and understandings of critical thinking; (3) perceived pedagogical and assessment-related challenges; (4) access to institutional or community-based support (e.g. professional learning communities, collaborative planning, informal peer networks); and (5) perceptions of digital technologies and artificial intelligence in relation to students’ critical thinking development. The questionnaire includes a combination of closed-ended items using Likert-scale responses and a limited number of open-ended questions to allow respondents to elaborate on their experiences. Participants are recruited through a national dissemination strategy (e.g., professional teacher networks, institutional mailing lists, and targeted social media posts) and the expected sample includes approximately 300 teachers. This nationwide survey data complements, with a broader and quantitative perspective, the local in-depth interviews that revealed that teachers conceptualize CT across epistemic (analysis), argumentative (perspective-taking), ethical-civic (empathy, autonomy), and metacognitive dimensions, often as a transversal skill rather than a separate subject, with VTS enhancing observation, dialogic exchange, and non-judgmental climates despite constraints like time pressures, assessment demands, and transmissive habit. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical methods, through SPSS. Descriptive analyses map overall trends in teachers’ conceptions of CT and perceived challenges, while inferential analyses explore differences and associations across school levels, subject areas, and access to professional support. Responses to open-ended items will be analysed using qualitative content analysis to contextualise and deepen interpretation of the survey results. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study aims to contribute to ongoing debates on the role of critical thinking in contemporary education by examining how teachers conceptualise critical thinking and the challenges they encounter in its teaching and assessment across different levels of schooling in Italy. By adopting a system-level perspective and combining insights from earlier qualitative work with a nationwide survey, the research addresses a gap in the empirical literature concerning how critical thinking is understood and supported beyond single institutional or subject-specific contexts (Galindo Domínguez, Bezanilla, & Poblete, 2023). Rather than treating critical thinking as a fixed or uniformly implemented construct, the study acknowledges the plurality of teachers’ conceptions and the contextual conditions that shape classroom practice (Li, 2023). The survey design allows for the exploration of variations across educational levels and subject areas, offering a nuanced account of how pedagogical challenges intersect with teachers’ access institutional and community-based support (Stoll & Louis, 2007). In doing so, the study responds to longstanding concerns regarding the fragmentation of critical thinking initiatives and the limited alignment between policy aspirations and everyday teaching practices (OECD, 2019b). The research also situates critical thinking within a broader educational landscape characterised by rapid technological and artificial intelligence. Drawing on existing literature, the study treats these developments as an important contextual dimension and explores how teachers perceive their relevance for students’ critical thinking development (Brazão & Tinoca, 2025). This exploratory focus reflects the need for empirically grounded insights into how emerging technologies are interpreted and negotiated by teachers in relation to core educational aims. By providing large-scale quantitative evidence complemented by qualitative insights from open-ended survey responses, this study seeks to inform teacher education, professional development, and school leadership by identifying structural and professional conditions that may enable more coherent and sustainable approaches to critical thinking (Batdı, 2024). References Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 275–314 Batdı, V. (2024). Evaluation of the effectiveness of critical thinking training on teachers in primary and secondary schools. Review of Education. Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge. Brazão, P., & Tinoca, L. (2025). Artificial intelligence and critical thinking: A case study with educational chatbots. Frontiers in Education, 10. Connors, C., & Piro, J. S. (2025). Visual Thinking Strategies as humanistic education: A qualitative study of teachers using VTS. International Journal of Changes in Education, 2(2), 66–79. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D. C. Heath. Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking. Prentice Hall. Galindo-Domínguez, H., Bezanilla, M. J., & Poblete, M. (2023). A teachers' based approach to assessing the perception of critical thinking in university students. Frontiers in Education, 8, Article 1127705. Granström, M., Kikas, E., & Eisenschmidt, E. (2023). Classroom observations: How do teachers teach learning strategies? Frontiers in Education, 8. Li, L. (2023). Critical thinking from the ground up: Teachers' conceptions and practice in EFL classrooms. Teachers and Teaching, 29(6), 571–593. Nolan, S. (2024). Visual Thinking Strategies for reading engagement: Adapting lessons from Denmark to English language learning. Children’s Literature in English Language Education, 12(2), 20–40. Oyler, D. R., & Romanelli, F. (2014). The fact of ignorance: Revisiting the Socratic method as a tool for teaching critical thinking. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(7), Article 144. OECD. (2019a). Education policy outlook 2019: Working together to help students succeed. OECD. OECD. (2019b). Fostering students' creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. OECD. Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching for Understanding. American Educator, 17, 28-35. Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. Routledge. Shafer, D. (2025). A critical thinking thematic framework and observation tool for improved theory and developing secondary teachers' instructional practice: Proof of concept. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(1), 3–10. Vincent-Lancrin, S., González-Sancho, C., Bouckaert, M., de Luca, F., Fernández-Barrerra, M., Jacotin, G., Urgel, J., & Vidal, Q. (2019). Fostering students' creativity and critical thinking: What it means in school. OECD Publishing. | ||